Ok, I see what you mean Forrest. That would be exciting. It seems most hardware synth allow you to process external audio but only run it through the FX and or filters. I could see some deeper integration as you suggest, not just pass the signal but the signal become part of the synth as a building block or as an oscillator, almost more organic if that possible. Ive looked for such a thing but I dont think it exist....yet.

Logged

"Life is one big road, with lots of signs, so when you ride to the Roots, do not complicate your mind, ... " Bob Marley

Following the original link, I saw the 'phase 22' engine under 'technology', which has evolved from Spark. I've found Spark to be a real odd one, like a lot of NI stuff, I don't think the presets are that interesting, but I'm sure it is. I feel the need to delve into it some more, I think my lack of understanding of the architecture of the synth is a factor here

Am I misunderstanding you? You would prefer that the output of a synth be pre-processed?

I'd want any synth (digital or otherwise) to be as clean as possible, without any colouring or processing. That's the whole point of outboard effects: to shape the sound exactly how the musician wants it. If the output of the synth is already processed, you lose a lot of flexibility.

I am just against this hyping and this total "facination" of medicore sound, I use alchemy mostly for ambient, does it sound good ? no it sound total shit, but with my processing I have no problem to make it shine and sound good.

OK, lets make a practical test instead of talking too much

During the next days I will upload for you a 1 minute track on my server. I will try my best to make it sound like total shit….please download the file, process it with all your gear and make it shiny and good sounding as you mentioned. After that, please upload it on a file sharing site so anyone can download and hear the result.

I´m sure you won´t have any problems to do that!

I will provide you the file (link) soon - please be a bit patient as I have to prepare it first!

So Far Immersion if I can sum up for you regarding the possible future of synthesis......classic vintage gear other than Moog sounds bad. Current analog synths like the Prophet 12 sounds like bad soft synths and soft synths in general also sound bad except the one or two you use though they don't really sound that good either according to you. So actually the future is in processing. The source is of no importance because its the processing that will make these dead synths come alive. This is what I have come away with so far from your comments.

If you feel there is no future say so.....then say why you think so.....oh, you have already done that then why not offer some possible direction you hope it might go.

Logged

"Life is one big road, with lots of signs, so when you ride to the Roots, do not complicate your mind, ... " Bob Marley

Any synth you can name that "sounds bad," a talented person can use to create something that sounds beautiful and amazing. This is true of ancient modulars, early analog mono synths, digital synths, samplers, ROMplers, soft synths or anything else.

Much of Eno's important work was made with pretty much nothing but a DX7 and a few basic effects.

Agreed, and I don't mean to say all synths are equal, or that a Casio CZ101 is just as good as an Andromeda or a Moog or a Matrix 12 or any of the "greats." I tend to think of all synths as having their own strengths. For some synths, like a CZ101 or my Roland SH101 (hey, my first two synths both had the number "101"...) one of the strengths is that they're straightforward and easy to learn, so maybe their value is more as learning tools which are limited in terms of practical usage.

Over the years I've seen so many people say "Oh, everybody knows FM synths like the DX7 are hard to program and boring sounding," or "Everybody knows Rom based synths like D50 and M1 sound good, but they're shallow and predictable." I think it's very easy to dismiss a synth this way, and also end up dismissing or ignoring the very great work some people are able to create with synths like these.

I'm very fond of many Roland digital synths - especially the JD-990, though I certainly use its internal effects. Access to both good analog and digital intruments is the very best IMO - and, of course, ones that you feel a special relationship with.

I'm very fond of many Roland digital synths - especially the JD-990, though I certainly use its internal effects. Access to both good analog and digital intruments is the very best IMO - and, of course, ones that you feel a special relationship with.

Agreed, and I don't mean to say all synths are equal, or that a Casio CZ101 is just as good as an Andromeda or a Moog or a Matrix 12 or any of the "greats." I tend to think of all synths as having their own strengths. For some synths, like a CZ101 or my Roland SH101 (hey, my first two synths both had the number "101"...) one of the strengths is that they're straightforward and easy to learn, so maybe their value is more as learning tools which are limited in terms of practical usage.

This is very true Mike.....the learning is crucial and limited is good. Without a decent amount of practical electronic synthesis knowledge one would have a hard time getting the most out of an Andromeda or M12. They are very deep instruments and thus are a constant source of sonic surprises to the seasoned electronic musician. Im a much more knowledgeable programmer after spend time using a modular synth.

I think a few different "limited" synths in one studio is just as good as using the some of the "greats" because as you suggest one becomes a master.

Logged

"Life is one big road, with lots of signs, so when you ride to the Roots, do not complicate your mind, ... " Bob Marley